Rooster crows, sun comes up.

Why did the SEALs choose the Glock? Same reason the Rangers, and Marsoc did. SOCOM provided it for free.

People often have an unrealistic idea or expectation based upon personal belief or movies.

NSW came to the end of their contract with SIG Sauer. SOCOM had an existing contract with Glock. NSW was given the option- If you want something other than a Glock, you may buy it....out of your own budget. Or we'll give you Glocks as they are already in our supply chain. So what did they do? They went Glock. Pistols are secondary weapons for them. All the while people have a Hollywood based image of bearded special operators riding the concussion of a bang into a room through a whisk of smoke and dispatching tangos with a single headshot from a pistol. Not so much in real life. Actual shootings by NSW with a pistol are rare. And on top of being rare, they are usually fairly close distance. (As to where shootings with a rifle are not rare). The percentage goes up obviously in dealing with DevGru, but not by much.

And let's face it, for what they use them for in the traditional teams, any modern semi-automatic pistol would work. The Glock 19 is the current flavor, but I've been hearing that a lot of units inside of SOCOM are starting to trend toward the M17 and M18. One of the reasons is optics.

So, how did SOCOM go Glock? Pretty simple, actually. In the early days of the GWOT, FBI HRT spent quite a bit of time deployed to the various sandbox shitholes where we were fighting conflicts. HRT hit a pretty strong bond with Delta, often staying in the same compounds and sharing resources. HRT and Delta both had issues keeping their high end 1911s up and running due to the sand and the guns being tightly fit. HRT had brought a case of Glock 22s with them as backups. They found that the Glock never had an issue in the environment, and would still give them a similar level of performance. So, CAG ordered 2000 Glock 22s. (Larry Vickers stated that they had a fleet of armorers at the time trying to make the Glock 22 trigger more "1911 like"). They eventually ordered Glock 19s because the ammo was available at just about anywhere they went if they ran short. Glock swooped in and did what Glock does well, sold pistols and parts. As part of this contract, one by one, the units attached were given an opportunity to get pistols, or buy their own. One by one, Glock announced the unit went Glock as if it was some big feat. Can't blame them as it matters in the world we live in to a lot of people.

To the USMS. They shoot a lot of people in a years time. Think about your local news, and even if you live in Possum Trot, KY, you've probably heard a news story this year where the Marshal's Service dumped one. Most generally, their shootings are with handguns. (One semi recent shooting last year in Clarksville, TN was with a rifle. 65 yard head shot on a cop killer in a Cracker Barrel parking lot) The USMS place a very high emphasis on individual marksmanship. Matter of fact, all of my trips to Rogers Shooting School had a deputy marshal in the class. They are and always have been a culture of shooters.

To say they know a thing or two about shooting human beings with a pistol is probably an understatement. And this is where they are today. Making false statements, posing statements as a question, and then claiming "I'm free to have an opinion" as some kind of bullet proof shield for stupid statements flies in the face of what the USMS have learned over the last bit. And virtually every other top LE agency have learned the same lesson. Matter of fact, anyone remember a hostage rescue down in Alabama of a young boy being held in an underground bunker? HRT finished that with two rounds to the head of the hostage taker. They chose a 1911 when they made that assault. They (and the regional SWAT teams) still have access to the 1911. Which is only marginally cheaper than what SOG went with.

The "top shooters" that have failed to find the dot under stress probably struggle more than those who put them on a pedestal will admit. Cause guess what? If you are far enough off that you can't find the dot......your iron sights are that far off too. (Take a pistol with a properly zero'd dot and point it at a target at 10 yards. Move the dot until it is all the way out of the window. Look at the irons. They aren't off by just a little at that point.) You need to clean up your presentation instead of clinging to iron sights as a crutch for poor performance. When you look at most competitions, who are the top shooters overall? Always generally open shooters. Comps, and optics. If optics are so horrible, why don't production shooters constantly trounce them? Because they have clean fundamentals and can exploit the dot.

Is the dot perfect? Nope. Is the dot for everyone? Nope. Is the dot all of the mean and hateful things portrayed here? Nope. Iron sights fail too, as has been pointed out. Many times.

Haters going to hate. But, they only make fools of themselves when they reel in that red herring and filet it up into a great straw man argument.

Anybody know what wine goes best with herring?

Good stuff as always. Thanks for sharing!

At least we have made progress as a forum.

Nobody is bitching about the weaponslights in the OPs pictures

Amen!

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
At least we have made progress as a forum.

Nobody is bitching about the weaponslights in the OPs pictures

When a unit has the option of choosing different pistols for a mission/assault, what are the determining factors or the considerations that lead to the decision?

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
I don’t think you’ve read through this carefully so let me clear a few things up for you.

 

I wondered how this thread was suddenly six pages long. Now I wish I didn’t know. Good grief.

I would say "as is so often the case", but I've been known to, ah, "extend" the odd thread myself.

I’ve been guilty of that myself. But sometimes, you just gotta stop digging.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
Whatever.

Yeah, you mad.

Another thing SOCOM likes about polymer guns is this - they are lighter than metal guns. Ounces make Pounds.

And guess what? Sometimes they don't even BRING a pistol with them!

Nicely said, Jones.

Whatever

Why do people get there panties in a twist over what some group who goes into harms way chooses?

I mean I have less of a “personal” issue with the optics as worst case you have a giant ghost ring, and more of an issue with a 1911ish pistol........but you know what....I don’t go in harms way for a living. I am not trained to shoot folks who need shooting. So my opinion matters.......well not at all.

It’s not my personal bag, but I will say the high end STIs I have shot have been sublime. They are soooooo easy to shoot well at least in my low stress situations.

Raised eyebrows and shaking my head here, too. The excuse that people are going to have "circle jerk sessions" about this choice to get fired about it makes no sense to me.

I thought we discussed pistols in this here forum. Some folks saw fit to buy some pistols. We shouldn't discuss it because someone might "circle jerk" over it or some shit. Am I using that term correctly?

Hey, can we also shit all over everyone else's thread about the new pistol they bought because it isn't what the YUU ESS NAVY SEEAALS decided to "run?" I mean, I love me some Glock (am I circle jerking correctly here?) but I guess it could maybe, or should be ok if other folks decide that they don't like the Glock? Is it ok if people can decide shit for themselves? When I phrase it that way, it almost sounds... reasonable... oh shit, now I'm stuck in the circle jerk!!

It's jealousy. After all, who wouldn't like a 2011 with a Delta Point Pro?

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
When a unit has the option of choosing different pistols for a mission/assault, what are the determining factors or the considerations that lead to the decision?

AT that level, operator confidence. Every SWAT team/HRT/SOG in America have those go to guys for different missions. Hostage rescue with a pistol is no different. You've got a few all stars in a group of all stars that are the ones that stand above every one else with a pistol. The bosses just want the job done, and do not care how it gets done.

So, the best pistol shooters get tasked with that particular operation, and if they have a choice, they choose the tool that they have the most time/confidence on.

Which is the way it should be instead of bean counters or fan boy administrators making the decision.

Don’t blame the bean counters, they simply point out the number of beans. It is then up to someone else as to whether the number is pleasing.

Such a process might not be pleasing to everyone, but that’s life in the big city - especially when you want someone else to pay for your tools.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
Nicely said, Jones.

Yes.

Wow....never understood these types of arguments, granted only one side could not see the forest for the trees.

Seals and the USMS SOG have very different mission profiles that sometimes overlap.

USMS and HRT are very similar and both use the 1911 platform.

THe G19 is a very good "combat" pistol arguably the best IMHO and while it would perform probably 90% in the hands of a skilled shooter compared to a 1911 platform with a RDS I would still (as I mentioned earlier) prefer the shooter separating my child from a hostage taker be using the best platform for the job.

You could use a standard Rem 700 5R for sniping but wouldn't you prefer an M40 worked over by the boys at Quantico?

Different tools for different mission profiles....if you have ever been in a SF Companies' arms room you would see many more options than just the M4 and G19....Geeesh